Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Resham Singh and Co. P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT270Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For reasons recorded below, we reject the applications of the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that bar of unjust enrichment does not operate against the respondents herein who are importers of cranes, merely on the ground that they claimed depreciation of capital goods for Income Tax purposes, and proceed to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts are that the respondents herein imported truck cranes, which were allowed clearance under Heading 8426.41. The Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal filed by the importers held that the correct classification would be CTA Heading 8426.91 and the cases were remanded for consideration of this classification. The adjudicating authorities classified the goods under Heading 8426.91 on the basis of the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the importers claimed refund of excess duty paid, which had arisen as a r...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Commercial Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is a departmental appeal against the impugned order which reduced the penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed by the Dy.Collector of Customs to Rs. 2,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The learned S.D.R. reiterates the grounds of appeal which is re-produced below:- "The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- is not legal and proper for the following reasons: Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty amount drastically on two grounds:- 1. The results to the test were not made known to the importers for very large time. 2. Offence of disposing off the sub-standard drugs was mitigated by the face that goods were sold as Animal and Paultry feed and not for the use by human being. None of the above grounds are correct to justify the reduction in penalty for the following reasons:- Goods were cleared under Letter of Guarantee in July-1993, test results were reported in Nov. 1993 and in Dec.1993. S.C...

Pioneer Furnaces Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The impugned order demands duty of Rs. 54,846/- and imposes penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellants. The impugned order in appeal has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds:- "The issue is that certain goods were cleared by the assessee which were received back in his Unit for repair Under Rule 173H beyond the period of one year without obtaining any permission from the Commissioner and neither the original duty paying documents were produced. The Original Authority has confirmed duty so raised vide 4 show cause notices issued and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee vide the impugned order. In appeal the assessee submitted that, they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Anand Division on 5.9.95 intimating that Original duty paid documents are not available and further that the goods were cleared from their factory beyond one year and sought permission to bring back the goods for repair under Rule 173H. However, there...

Errand Electronic Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This ROA application has been filed by the appellants seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24th May, 2002 under Section 35F of the Act. In the application the applicant have offered to make deposit of Rs. 50,000/- but at this stage this offer cannot be accepted as under the law. The above said order of the Tribunal can be recalled only on making compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Act. The learned Counsel has however submitted that the appellants be given two months time to comply with the provision of Section 35F of the Act and their ROA application be still kept pending. The Counsel has also referred to the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hussein Haji Harun v. Union of India - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 803 (Guj.) wherein it has been observed that Tribunal has power to modify the stay order and to consider restoration of the appeal. But such power can be exercised only if the appeal i...

Shree Dudhaganga Vedganga Ssk Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT866Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant, a sugar factory, was permitted to store sugar that it manufactured without payment of duty in a temporary godown. The sugar was destroyed by a fire which broke out in the godown. The appellant paid duty on this quantity which had damaged in the fire. It reprocessed part of the sugar and cleared it without payment of duty.It subsequently filed a claim for refund of the remaining part of the duty paid on the damaged sugar on the ground that it was entitled to remission in terms of Rule 49. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has held that since the permission that was granted for storage was subject to the condition that no remission would be claimed under Rule 49, there was no case for remission, dismissed the claim.2. The representative of the appellant requests adjournment on the ground that its counsel is busy in the Supreme Court. The matter has already been adjourned once on the ground that the counsel was busy and I therefore do not propose to ...

Alexcon Foamcast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT241Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Alexcon Foam Cast Ltd. (the Importer) was granted a licence under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme on 24-5-1993 for import of capital goods of a value of Rs. 11.88 crores. The licence enabled it to avail of the partial exemption from duty contained in the Notification 160/1992 subject to its exporting before May, 1998 (within 5 years from the date of the licence), the specified quantity of metal castings to be manufactured out of the machinery imported by it. The importer accordingly claimed, and was granted this exemption, after executing a bond supported by a bank guarantee, undertaking to export goods of this value within the specified period, or such extended period as may be allowed.2. For various reasons, it appears, the importer was unable to comply with the requirements of export. It is contended that the project for manufacture of the castings could not be set up and commercial production not commenced until 1996. In September, 1996, the importer wrote to t...

Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants have a hospital in Bombay. They had imported and cleared certain hospital equipments availing the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-CUS dated 01.03.1988. Proceedings were initiated by the department by issuance of a show cause notice dated 22.3.2002 proposing to deny the benefit of notification availed, on the ground that the appellants had not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the table to the said notification. The Commissioner passed the impugned order denying benefit of notification 64/88 without appreciating the plea and the requests made by the appellants to furnish them copy of Rosha Committee report and copies of documents submitted by the appellants before Rosha Committee for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96 and the request for summoning of Shri G.Anantharaman, Member of the said committee. The commissioner confiscated goods for contravening of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, give an option to redeem the same on payment ...

Shyamsunder Ghaniram Choudhary, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None appeared for the appellants. However, the appellants have filed a written submission drawing attention to the grounds of appeal filed by the main appellant M/s. Amul Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. These grounds are re-produced below:- "The appellants submit that the seizure of fabrics admeasuring 35,877.75 LMs as mentioned in Annexure-B; fabrics admeasuring 2192 LMs as mentioned in Annexure-D and fabrics admeasuring 8524.70 LMs as mentioned in Annexure-A & B, was illegal and without the authority of law inasmuch as the said fabrics was duly accounted for in the lot register. It, therefore, cannot be alleged that the appellants had any intention to clear the same without payment of duty. As such, the same is not liable to confiscation. The learned Addl. Collector ought to have appreciated the legal provision and ought not to have ordered that the same were liable for confiscation. The appellants submit that fabrics admeasuring 2192 LMs was admittedly in the form of chindis or small c...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Vs. B.G. Shirke Construction

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this stay application was called, the advocate for the respondents submitted a copy of letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Group V A, New Customs House, Mumbai, by which they intimated that they were withdrawing their claim of refund unconditionally and requested for closing of the matter.2. The JCDR for Revenue pointed out that this was a case of deliberate fraud and mis-representation in obtaining a favourable order from Commissioner (Appeals) by submitting incorrect letters showing that refund applications were made to the proper officers, whereas in fact the Customs house records do not show any such letter to have been received.3. Photocopies of the two letters in question were produced by the Ld.JCDR for perusal of the Bench. It was submitted that a perusal of the receipt stamps on these letters would show that a beneficial order has been obtained from Commissioner (Appeals), by presenting to him a letter, which shows the stamp of receipt by the refund section, whic...

Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Adjudication)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT869Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability for inclusion in the assessable value of the goods that the appellant manufactures of the cost of their transport including insurance from its factory to its buyers premises. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Escorts JCB v. CCE, 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650, held these costs to be includible.2. In its Order-in-Appeals E/1930/02 and others, including the appeal of this assessee, the Tribunal has noted that the decision in Escorts JCB had been overruled in appeal by the Supreme Court [2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.)] and found that on facts the transfer of the title of the goods took place at the factory gate. The terms of the contract in the present appeal relating to goods factory at Vadodara is same....